1 views

Uploaded by yash_ganatra

Nitesh Chawla big data

- Mobile Multimedia Recommendations
- Detailed Structure Applicable to Hybrid Recommendation Technique
- Analysis of a Multi-Domain Recommender System
- Web Service Recommendation by Combining QOS and User Comments
- Comparison of Recommender Systems
- Improving Aggregate Recommendation Diversity
- Rec Om Mender System
- IJIRAE:: FUZZY NEIGHBOUR PREDICTION BASED ON OBJECT TYPICALITY
- Ranking Diversity Aug2009
- Recommender Systems in Industrial Contexts
- KNN algo
- Ga Recommender
- Improving the Performance of Recommendation on Social Network by Investigating Interactions of Trust and Interest Similarity
- Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation Algorithms
- Feature Grading (1)
- Survey Final
- Movie Recommendation System
- Context Aware Decision Support Mobile Application for Recommendation in the Domain of Hotels
- Recommender Systems
- A Survey of Web Service Recommendation Methods-28660

You are on page 1of 11

Repository

integrative learning for recommendation

Joint matrix factorization and implicit walk integrative

learning for recommendation. 2017 IEEE International

Conference on Big Data (Big Data). Available:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258001.

DOI 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258001

Publisher IEEE

Data)

Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other users,

including reprinting/ republishing this material for

advertising or promotional purposes, creating new

collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or

lists, or reuse of any copyrighted components of this work

in other works.

ImWalkMF: Joint Matrix Factorization and Implicit

Walk Integrative Learning for Recommendation

Chuxu Zhang† , Lu Yu‡ , Xiangliang Zhang‡ and Nitesh Chawla†

†

University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

Email: {czhang11, nchawla}@nd.edu

‡

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia

Email: {lu.yu, xiangliang.zhang}@kaust.edu.sa

Abstract—Data sparsity and cold-start problems are prevalent prove MF and build the so-called implicit social recommender

in recommender systems. To address such problems, both the systems.

observable explicit social information (e.g., user-user trust con- Social recommender systems make usage of the trustable

nections) and the inferable implicit correlations (e.g., implicit

neighbors computed by similarity measurement) have been in- social relationships among users to address the sparsity issue

troduced to complement user-item ratings data for improving of ratings data, and thus improve the user preference prediction

the performances of traditional model-based recommendation by considering not only a users’ rating behavior, but also

algorithms such as matrix factorization. Although effective, (1) the tastes of a user’s trustable social neighbors. For example,

the utilization of the explicit user-user social relationships suffers in [12], a user social regularization term is integrated into

from the weakness of unavailability in real systems such as Netflix

or the issue of sparse observable content like 0.03% trust density the objective function of MF to help shape the users’ latent

in Epinions, thus there is no or little explicit social information space. However, the utilization of the explicit user-user social

that can be employed to improve baseline model in real ap- connections suffers from two main weaknesses: (a) there is no

plications; (2) the current similarity measurement approaches available indication about reliable social relationship in most

focus on inferring implicit correlations between a user (item) real-life systems such as Netflix or Ebay or (even there is)

and their direct neighbors or top-k similar neighbors based on

user-item ratings bipartite network, so that they fail to compre- the explicit relationship indication is usually very sparse (e.g.,

hensively unfold the indirect potential relationships among users the trust density in Epinions is 0.03%), thus most of the social

and items. To solve these issues regarding both explicit/implicit recommendation algorithms can not be applied to real systems;

social recommendation algorithms, we design a joint model of (b) an active user can be socially connected with others who

matrix factorization and implicit walk integrative learning, i.e., have different taste/preference [18] so that social relationship

ImWalkMF, which only uses explicit ratings information yet

models both direct rating feedbacks and multiple direct/indirect fails to encode the comprehensive correlation between the

implicit correlations among users and items from a random diverse tastes of two users toward different kinds of items.

walk perspective. We further propose a combined strategy for As for the implicit social recommender systems, they infer and

training two independent components in the proposed model incorporate implicit correlations information into MF based on

based on sampling. The experimental results on two real-world the explicit rating feedbacks. For instance, in [18], an implicit

sparse datasets demonstrate that ImWalkMF outperforms the

traditional regularized/probabilistic matrix factorization models network embedding method CUNE is proposed to compute

as well as other competitive baselines that utilize explicit/implicit similarities among users and generate top-k similar neighbors

social information. of each user and further incorporate them into MF. Although

enhancing MF with inferred correlations, current implicit

I. I NTRODUCTION social recommendation approaches have two main limitations:

Recommender systems have become an indispensable tech- (a) the rating-based similarity measurements (e.g., Pearson

nique for filtering and recommending information or items to correlation coefficient) are easy to find direct neighbors yet

personalize to users’ preferences or needs, such as product provide no correlation information for non-neighboring nodes

recommendation at Amazon and movie recommendation at on user-item ratings bipartite network; (b) the methods (e.g.,

Netflix or music recommendation at Pandora or even disease CUNE) generating top-k implicit neighbors ignore correlations

prediction systems [1]. Various approaches [2]–[8] based on between a user and their non-top-k neighbors which may still

matrix factorization (MF) have been proposed to solve the contain some potential useful information, so that they fail to

problem of ratings prediction and make recommendations explore implicit information comprehensively.

by only using user-item ratings information. To improve the To resolve the above issues regarding both explicit and

recommendation performance, recent works [9]–[16] employ implicit social recommender systems, we propose to extract

the observable explicit social relationships (e.g., trust links multiple implicit and reliable correlations among users and

among online users) to enhance MF framework and build items by only using ratings information. Specifically, we

social recommender systems. Besides, implicit correlations in- manage users’ positive feedbacks (relatively large ratings)

formation (e.g., top-k similar neighbors) induced by similarity on items as a user-item implicit bipartite network (U-I-Net)

measurement based approaches [17], [18] is utilized to im- and utilize random walk sampling on U-I-Net to generate a

set of node sequences. Each random walk sequence implies matrix r. MF tends to approximate r by a multiplication of d-

multiple direct/indirect correlations among users and items rank user and item latent factor vectors, i.e. r ≈ z T q, where

within the walk. Next, we design a joint model ImWalkMF z ∈ Rd×m and q ∈ Rd×n with d min(m, n). Thus the

of MF and implicit walk integrative learning (IWIL) based rating of user ui on item vj can be predicted by the inner

on the collected random walk set. The MF component of product of the specific user latent factor zi (i-th column vector

ImWalkMF formalizes users’ direct rating feedbacks on items of z) and item latent factor qj (j-th column vector of q),

by using standard square loss. Besides, the IWIL component i.e. r̂ij = zi T qj . The formulation leads to the optimization

of ImWalkMF formalizes multiple direct/indirect correlations problem that minimizes the square loss on the set of known

among users and items from both user and item levels by ratings:

introducing a user-user (item-item) pull loss function and a 2 2

(rij − zi T qj )2 + λ2 (kzi k + kqj k ),

P

user-item (item-user) push loss function. Thus ImWalkMF minz∗ ,q∗ r

ij∈R̃

where R̃ is the set of known ratings, i.e., training data, and λ is

useful implicit information. In order to solve the challenge

the regularization parameter for controlling model complexity

of training ImWalkMF made of two independent components

to avoid over-fitting. Gradient based approaches can be applied

using different data samples, we propose a combined strategy

to model training since the objective function is derivable.

based on sampling to train the joint model and optimize the

Besides ratings prediction, MF has been proved to be effective

latent factors of users and items. Further evaluated experiments

in top-N recommendations [21]–[24].

verify the effectiveness of ImWalkMF in recommendation. In

summary, our main contributions are as follows: B. Social Recommendation Systems

• We innovatively introduce random walk sampling to col- Recently, due the prevalence of Web 2.0 based social

lect a set of node sequences based on user-item implicit networks, the research of social recommender systems has

bipartite network that implies multiple implicit and reliable attracted a lot of attention. Many novel social recommendation

correlations. Unlike previous work that focus on computing algorithms [9]–[13], [15] based on MF have been proposed to

similarities and inferring limited implicit relationship among improve the recommendation performance. For example, one

users (items), it captures comprehensive information to com- popular model SoReg [12] incorporates a social regularization

plement user-item ratings data. into MF and is formally defined as:

• Based on the set of random walk sequences, we propose a 2 2

T 2 λ

P

joint recommendation model ImWalkMF for modeling both minz∗ ,q∗ rij∈R̃ (rij − zi qj ) + 2 (kzi k + kqj k )

rating feedbacks and multiple implicit correlations among P 2

+ α uk ∈F (i) sim(i, k) kzi − qk k ,

users and items, and further design a combined strategy for

training ImWalkMF based on sampling. where F (i) denotes the set of social neighbors of user ui ,

• We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the perfor- parameter α controls the extent of social constraint, and

mance of ImWalkMF. The results show that ImWalkMF sim(i, k) represents the precomputed similarity score between

largely improves the traditional regularized/probabilistic ma- ui and their friend uk . The extra regularization term tends

trix factorization models, and outperforms the competitive to reduce the distance between the latent factors of each

baselines that utilize explicit/implicit social information. user and their social neighbors, which helps shape the latent

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section space of users and improve the recommendation performance.

II reviews the background and related work of this paper. More importantly, the framework can be easily modified or

Section III describes the proposed method and algorithm. The extended by other indirect implicit information. For example,

results from extensive experiments are presented in Section the explicit social constraint can be replaced by implicit

IV, followed by the conclusion in Section V. correlations generated by predefined similarity measurement

[17] or network embedding technique [18] when the explicit

II. BACKGROUND social connections are not available. In addition, item based

constraints can be introduced to further enhance the model if

In this section, we briefly review the background and related category or tags information [25] is available.

work including recommender systems, metric learning and

random walk sampling on networks. C. Metric Learning for k-Nearest Neighbors Classification

Metric learning algorithms [26]–[29] generate a distance

A. Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Filtering metric that captures the important relationship among data

Traditional collaborative filtering (CF) techniques [19], [20] and have been widely applied to many applications such as

focus on computing rating-based similarities (e.g., cosine the nearest neighbors classification or document retrieval. One

similarity) among users (items) and find the most similar of the most well known metric learning models for k-nearest

neighbors to the query user (item). Over the past decade, the neighbors classification is the large margin nearest neighbor

matrix factorization (MF) [2], [4], [6], [8] has perhaps become (LMNN) [27], which tends to learn a metric that minimizes

the most popular CF approach due to its superior performance. the number of differently labeled impostors of the given input

The ratings of m users on n items are denoted by an m × n data point. Specifically, LMNN defines two loss functions, i.e.,

pull loss and push loss, and combines them to generate the and only if rij ≥ σ (σ = 3 in this work when ratings are

complete loss function. The pull loss of the given input i is from 1 to 5), to denote the corresponding implicit information.

formulated as: Step 1 of Figure 1 shows an example. We extract all positive

feedbacks (in red color, rij ≥ 3 in scale 5) from an 8×8 rating

ϕpull (i) = j i d(i, j)2 ,

P

matrix and represent them by an 8-8 U-I-Net. The U-I-Net

where d(·) is the distance metric between two input data points is unweighted since we regard each positive feedback as the

and j i denotes that j is i’s target neighbor. Besides, the same extent of implicit indication and it captures preference

push loss of the given input i is defined as: relations of each user with respect to different items.

ϕpush (i) = j i k (1 − yik )[1 + d(i, j)2 − d(i, k)2 ]+ , B. User-Item Random Walk Sequences Generation

P P

where yik = 1 if two data points i and k belong to the

random walk samplings over U-I-Net and collect a set of

same class, otherwise yik = 0, and [x]+ = max(x, 0)

node sequences. Formally, given a root node c0 , we simulate

is the standard hinge loss. Besides the nearest neighbors

a random walk (with length L) wc0 = {c0 , c1 , c2 , ..., cL−1 }

classification, the idea of LMNN has been adopted in question

via conducting alternation between users and items. Denote

answering systems [30], [31], recommender systems [32],

the i-th node in the walk as ci−1 and it is selected from the

author identification [33], etc.

neighbors of its predecessor ci−2 using:

D. Random Walk Based Information Integration 1

p(ci−1 = x|ci−2 = y) = ,

The random walk based approaches were originally used |N b(y)|

in network sampling [34]–[36] and influential nodes identi-

where N b(y) is ci−2 ’s neighbor set in U-I-Net. Figure 1 (step

fication [37]–[39]. In recent years, the random walk method

2) gives an example: a walk w1 ≡ {1 → b → 3 → e →

has been applied to network embedding [40], [41], question

6 → g → 4 → c → 2 → a} is generated by random walk in

answering system [30], [31], etc. due to its effectiveness

U-I-Net. The surrounding context of each node in w1 implies

in integrating multiple correlations information in networks.

multiple correlations among users and items within w1 . Take

Generally, a random walk rooted at a specific node is a stochas-

sub-sequences ŵb ≡ {b → 3 → e → 6 → g → 4 → c} and

tic process with a sequence of random variables, such that

ŵ3 ≡ {3 → e → 6 → g → 4 → c → 2} (window size equals

each variable is a node chosen randomly from the neighbors

to 3) centered at user 6 and item g as examples. The multiple

of its predecessor. In analogy with a sentence in corpus,

correlations include:

the random walk node sequences could be further fed to

• user-item direct correlation: user 6 shows preference on

Word2Vec model [42] for embedding learning. Besides, the

homogeneous random walk sequence can be easily extended item e and g since 6 directly connects to e and g in ŵb .

• user-user indirect correlation: user 6 has similar taste with

in heterogeneous context and be applied to other applications

such as question retrieval (contains user, question, answer user 3 and user 4 in ŵb since both 6 and 3 rate item e

nodes) in question answering system or author identification positively, both 6 and 4 rate item g positively.

• user-item indirect correlation: user 6 has indirect preference

(contains author, paper, venue, keyword nodes) in academic

search service. on item b and item c in ŵb since user 3 and user 4 have

direct correlations with b and c respectively, and 3 and 4

III. P ROPOSED M ETHOD have indirect correlations with 6.

In this section, we present the ImWalkMF method that • item-user direct correlation: item g receives positive feed-

contains three consecutive steps: 1) constructing user-item back from both user 6 and user 4 since g directly connects

implicit bipartite network; 2) generating user-item random to 6 and 4 in ŵ3 .

walk sequences; and 3) designing the joint model of matrix • item-item indirect correlation: item g has similar attribute

factorization and implicit walk integrative learning. Figure 1 with item e and item c in ŵ3 since both g and e are rated by

gives an illustration of the whole process, which we detail user 6 positively, both g and c are rated by user 4 positively.

below. • item-user indirect correlation: item g receives indirect pref-

erence from user 3 and user 2 in ŵ3 since item e and item

A. User-Item Implicit Bipartite Network Construction c have direct correlations with 3 and 2 respectively, and e

At the first step of ImWalkMF, we extract user-item implicit and c have indirect correlations with g.

feedbacks by using the available ratings information. The user- According to the above discussion, we can find that

item online ratings are usually represented by an m × n rating each random walk contains both direct correlations between

matrix r where rij denotes that user ui ever gave rating rij to neighboring nodes and transitive correlations among non-

item vj . The value of rij denotes the extent of ui ’s preference neighboring nodes. In addition, the correlations exist not only

on vj and a relatively large score means a positive indication. between two nodes of the same type but also two nodes

Similar to the concept of implicit feedbacks [43] used in of different types, which makes the extracted information

previous work, we utilize a user-item implicit bipartite network comprehensive. Moreover, the co-occurrence frequencies of

(U-I-Net) where connections only exist between ui and vj if any two nodes in the same walks reflect their correlations if

b

3
user-‐user
level
pull
loss

1

e

user
item
b

a c d e f g h 6
ra5ng
based
matrix
factoriza5on

b 1
a

1 2
3
2
1
1
2
4
3

3
g

2
b

2
5
2
4
3
1
2
2
1
e
4

3
c
random
user-‐item
level
push
loss

3
3
4
2
1
5
1
2
1
implicit

4
1
2
5
2
4
2
5
2
feedback
4
d
walk
6
c

5
2
5
1
4
2
1
2
1
rij>=3
5
e
g
3

6
4
1
2
2
3
5
3
1
e

6
f
4
item-‐item
level
pull
loss

7 2
5
1
4
2
1
2
1

g

8 7
6

2
1
2
2
3
1
1
4
c

8
h
g
ra5ng
based
matrix
factoriza5on

2

user-‐item
ra=ng
matrix
U-‐I-‐Net
4

a
c
item-‐user
level
push
loss

2

step
1
step
2
step
3

Fig. 1. The illustration of ImWalkMF model. The first step is to construct user-item implicit bipartite network (U-I-Net) via extracting users’ positive feedbacks

on items. The second step is to generate random walk sequences (e.g., w1 labeled by solid lines with arrow) by random walk sampling on U-I-Net. The third

step is to design the joint model as well as the learning algorithm.

we generate plenty of walks rooted at each node. In the next The above equation obeys assumption (1), namely a user

subsection, we design a joint model to formalize these implicit should be closer to neighbors who have similar preference

correlations as well as the explicit ratings information. than the others. Thus we define a user-level pull loss in each

random walk w as:

C. Joint Model of Matrix Factorization and Implicit Walk zh(t) − zh(t+∆t) 2 (2)

X X

Lupull (w) =

Integrative Learning uh(t) ∈w −τ ≤∆t≤τ,∆t6=0

uh(t) ∈U uh(t+∆t) ∈U

The previous two steps generate a set of random walk

sequences that capture multiple reliable correlations among where τ is the window size of uh(t) ’s surrounding context

users and items. As the last and the core step of ImWalkMF, w[t − τ : t + τ ], and h(·) maps the position of surrounding

we design a joint model to formalize these correlations in context to the node index. Thus constraining Lupull keeps user-

this section. The high level idea of ImWalkMF model is user indirect correlations. In addition, inspired by the metric

as follows: we use matrix factorization (MF) to model the learning work [27], we introduce the hinge loss to capture the

observable user-item ratings. In addition, we introduce an difference of ui ’s preference scores on an indirect correlated

implicit walk integrative learning (IWIL) component to model item vk and a negative item vk0 (rating is smaller than the

multiple direct/indirect correlations among users and items by threshold σ in implicit feedbacks extraction):

following two assumptions: (1) the distance of latent factors 0

n o

Huv (i, k, k ) = ξ + rik0 − zi qk (3)

between indirect correlated neighbors (i.e. user-user pair and +

item-item pair) should be as small as possible since they share where {x}+ = max(x, 0) and ξ is a positive margin value.

similar preferences or attributes; and (2) the preference score The hinge loss obeys assumption (2) and a loss penalty will

of direct/indirect correlated user-item (item-user) pair should incur if the preference score (quantified by the multiplication

be larger than the corresponding value of negative user-item of two related latent factor vectors) of positive pair (ui , vk )

(item-user) pair since users are likely to choose correlated is not at least ξ larger than the corresponding value (explicit

items than negative items. Next, we formulate the IWIL in rating) of negative pair (ui , vk0 ). Denote the set of negative

details. items which receive negative indications from ui as N (ui )

1) User-Level Integrative Learning: Denote the set of user and a user-level push loss in each random walk w is formally

and the set of item as U and V , respectively. As discussed defined as:

in Section II, user ui and item vj are represented by a user X X X n

latent factor vector zi ∈ Rd×1 and an item latent factor vector Lupush (w) = ξ + rh(t)t0

uh(t) ∈w −τ ≤∆t≤τ,∆t6=0 v 0 ∈N (uh(t) )

qj ∈ Rd×1 , respectively. Inspired by SoReg [12], we measure uh(t) ∈U vh(t+∆t) ∈V t

− zh(t) qh(t+∆t)

0 +

du (i, i ) =k zi − zi0 k2 (1) (4)

Thus constraining Lupush is to capture user-item direct/indirect sources. To resolve this issue, we design a combined strategy

correlations. based on sampling to learn from random walk sequences.

2) Item-Level Integrative Learning: Similar to user-level Specifically, for each node (user/item) in a walk, it first draws

integrative learning, the item-level pull loss is formally defined samples from ratings data and updates parameters of the MF

as: component. Then it collects correlated neighbors sets of this

X X

qh(t) − qh(t+∆t) 2 (5) node and draws pair/triple samples for each loss function of

Lvpull (w) =

IWIL component and further updates the corresponding pa-

vh(t) ∈w −τ ≤∆t≤τ,∆t6=0

vh(t) ∈V vh(t+∆t) ∈V rameters. In order to reduce the training epochs and sampling

overhead, each component will be trained on a mini-batch

Similarly, constraining Lvpull keeps item-item indirect corre- of data samples instead of on a single sample. The detail of

lations. Besides, denote the set of users who give negative learning algorithm is summarized in Algorithm 1.

feedbacks to vj as N (vj ) and the item-level push loss is

formulated as: D. Model Inference

X X X n

Lvpush (w) = ξ + rt0 h(t) The stochastic gradient descent is applied to update model

vh(t) ∈w −τ ≤∆t≤τ,∆t6=0 u 0 ∈N (vh(t) )

vh(t) ∈V uh(t+∆t) ∈U t parameters for both MF and IWIL components in the joint

o objective function, i.e., Eq. (8). The update rules for different

− zh(t+∆t) qh(t) training samples are:

+

(6) • For rating sample rij ∈ R̃, the gradients of zi and qj are

In the same way, the loss penalty of Lvpush

captures item-user calculated as follows:

direct/indirect correlations. ∆zi = −2 · (rij − zi T qj )qj + 2 · λzi

3) The Joint Objective: Denote the set of all random walk (9)

∆qj = −2 · (rij − zi T qj )zi + 2 · λqj

sequences as C, the joint objective function is defined as a

0

combination of the MF and the IWIL in C: • For user-user pair sample (a, a ) ∈ Cuu , the gradients of

Xn

L =LM F + Lupull (w) + Lupush (w) + Lvpull (w) za and za0 are calculated as follows:

w∈C (7)

o ∆za = 2 · (za − za0 ) + 2 · λza

v

+ Lpush (w) + Lreg (10)

∆za0 = −2 · (za − za0 ) + 2 · λza0

where Lreg is the regularization term for avoiding over-fitting. 0

Let Cuu , Cuvv , Cvv and Cvuu be the sets of user-user pairs • For user-item-item triple sample (l, k, k ) ∈ Cuvv , the

of Lupull , user-item-item triples of Lupush , item-item pairs of gradients of zl and qk are formulated as follows:

Lvpull and item-user-user triples of Lvpush in C, respectively.

∆zl = −δ(ξ + rlk0 − zl qk · qk + 2 · λzl

Thus we can rewrite the joint objective function in terms of (11)

an expectation formula: ∆qk = −δ(ξ + rlk0 − zl qk · zl + 2 · λqk

2 2 2 where δ(x) is an indicator function, which equals to 1 if

L = E{rij ∈R̃} rij − zi T qj + λ kzk + kqk

| {z } | {z } and only if x is larger than 0 otherwise equals to 0.

0

LM F Lreg • For item-item pair sample (b, b ) ∈ Cvv , the gradients of qb

2

and qb0 are calculated as follows:

+ E{(a,a0 )∈Cuu } za − za0

| {z }

Lu

pull ∆qb = 2 · (qb − qb0 ) + 2 · λqb

n o (12)

+ E{(l,k,k0 )∈Cuvv } ξ + rlk0 − zl qk ∆qb0 = −2 · (qb − qb0 ) + 2 · λqb0

+

| {z } (8) 0

Lu

push

• For item-user-user triple sample (g, h, h ) ∈ Cvuu , the

2 gradients of zh and qg are formulated as follows:

+ E{(b,b0 )∈Cvv } qb − qb0

| {z } ∆zh = −δ(ξ + rh0 g − zh qg · qg + 2 · λzh

Lv

pull (13)

n o ∆qg = −δ(ξ + rh0 g − zh qg · zh + 2 · λqg

+ E{(g,h,h0 )∈Cvuu } ξ + rh0 g − zh qg

+

| {z } With the above gradient formulas, we repeat the process of

Lv

push Algorithm 1 to train the model until the parameter updates

meet the convergence criterion.

where R̃ is the set of observable ratings and λ is the regular-

ization parameter. To minimize the joint objective function,

IV. E XPERIMENTS

we utilize the stochastic gradient descent to update model

parameters. The main challenge is: we have two different In this section, we conduct extensive experiments to evaluate

components MF and IWIL that learn from two different data the performances of our model as well as the baselines.

Algorithm 1: ImW alkM F TABLE I

S TATISTICS OF DATASETS USED IN THIS PAPER .

Data:

1 R̃, U-I-Net Statistics CiaoDVD Epinions

Result: users # 17,615 40,163

2 [z, q]

d×|U |

items # 16,121 139,738

3 Initialize z ∈ R , q ∈ R|V |×d with random values

ratings # 72,665 664,824

within [0,1]

∗ rating density 0.026% 0.012%

4 for each u ∈ U do

rating range [1, 5] [1, 5]

5 for t = 0 to T do

trusts # 111,781 487,183

6 w ← RandomW alkSampling(U-I-Net, u∗ , L)

trust density 0.036% 0.030%

[z, q] ← Inf erence([z, q], R̃, w, τ )

7 Return [z, q]

8

A. Experimental Design

9 RandomW alkSampling(U-I-Net, u∗ , L)

10 Initialize walk w with [u∗ ] 1) Datasets: We use two real-world datasets CiaoDVD

11 currNode = u∗ and Epinions. Both of them contain sparse rating feedbacks

12 for l = 1 to L do and sparse social trusts information. The trust connection

13 nextNode = randomSelect(currNode.neighbor) is unweighted and each trust value equals to 1. Note that

14 w.add(nextNode) the proposed ImWalkMF uses only the rating feedbacks, not

15 currNode =nextNode the social trusts information that will be considered in other

16 return w baseline methods for comparison. The main statistics of the

17

datasets are summarized in Table I.

18 Inf erence([z, q], R̃, w, τ ) 2) Evaluation Metric: We use two most popular metrics,

19 // user-level i.e., the mean absolute error (MAE) and the root mean square

20 for each ui ∈ w do error (RMSE), to evaluate the recommendation accuracy of

21

w,ui

initialize Cuu and Cuvvw,ui

with empty sets each method. MAE is defined as:

// M F component

P

rij ∈R̂ |rij − r

bij |

22

23 sample a mini-batch of rating pair (i, f ) from R̃[i, :] M AE = (14)

|R̂|

24 update zi , qf via Eq. (9)

25 // IW IL component where rij is the rating user ui gave to item vj in test data set

26 for each vk ∈ w[i − τ : i + τ ] do R̂, and rbij represents the corresponding prediction score by a

27 for each vk0 ∈ N (ui ) do specific method. RMSE is defined as:

0

w,ui

28 add triple (i, k, k ) to Cuvv sP

bij )2

rij ∈R̂ (rij − r

29 for each ui0 ∈ w[i − τ : i + τ ] do RM SE = (15)

30

0

w,ui

add pair (i, i ) to Cuu |R̂|

0

w,ui

31 sample a mini-batch of triple (i, k, k ) from Cuvv A smaller MAE or RMSE value means a better performance.

32 update zi , qk via Eq. (11) 3) Baselines: To validate the effectiveness of our method,

0

w,ui

33 sample a mini-batch of triple (i, i ) from Cuu we select seven competitive comparison methods. The pro-

34 update zi , zi0 via Eq. (10) posed ImWalkMF is under the framework of matrix fac-

35 // item-level torization. Thus most of the baselines are based on matrix

36 for each vj ∈ w do factorization for the fair comparison. The baselines include:

w,v w,v

37 initialize Cvv j and Cvuuj with empty sets • RMF [6]: this is the matrix factorization approach with L2

38 sample a mini-batch of rating pair (g, j) from R̃[:, j] regularization on latent factors.

39 update zg , qj via Eq. (9) • PMF [8]: this is the probabilistic matrix factorization

40 for each uh ∈ w[j − τ : j + τ ] do algorithm which models latent factors of users and items

41 for each uh0 ∈ N (vj ) do via Gaussian distributions.

0 w,v

42 add triple (j, h, h ) to Cvuuj • SocReg [12]: this model incorporates the explicit social

connections among users into matrix factorization as a

43 for each vj 0 ∈ w[j − τ : j + τ ] do regularization constraint.

0 w,v

44 add pair (j, j ) to Cvv j • SocRec [9]: this is the social recommendation approach

45

0

sample a mini-batch of triple (j, h, h ) from

w,v

Cvuuj which models user preference by considering not only user’s

46 update zh , qj via Eq. (13) rating behavior, but also user’s social connections, based on

0 w,v the probabilistic matrix factorization.

47 sample a mini-batch of triple (j, j ) from Cvv j

48 update qj , qj 0 via Eq. (12)

49 Return [z, q]

• ISMF [17]: this is the implicit social recommendation on average 4.6% and 1.9% respectively, showing that the

algorithm which extends the matrix factorization with im- implicit random walk sequences capture informative and

plicit correlations computed by the predefined rating based useful information and the joint model effectively incorpo-

similarity function, e.g., Pearson correlation coefficient. rates the comprehensive correlations among users and items

• GPLSA [44]: this method utilizes the Gaussian probabilistic to further improve the recommendation accuracy. Although

latent semantic analysis to model the users’ preferences on the improvements of ImWalkMF over some baselines are

different items. small, the small improvements in MAE or RMSE may

• CUNEMF [18]: this model extends the matrix factorization lead to significant difference of recommendation in real

with implicit constraint generated by random walk based applications [45].

network embedding technique. • Comparing with the best baseline, we find that the im-

4) Experimental Settings: We randomly select 60% or 80% provements of ImWalkMF on category B test data is larger

of the dataset as a training set to train the model, and further than the corresponding value on category A test data.

predict the remaining 40% or 20% of the dataset. To achieve That is because test instances (whose user or item never

a fair comparison, we use grid search to find the best values appears in training process) predicted by global average

for the dimension of latent factor vector from {5, 10, 15, rating reduce the overall prediction accuracy in category A,

20}, and the regularization parameter from {0.1, 0.01, 0.001, which further validates the effectiveness of model training

0.0001} for each evaluated method. The latent factor vector of ImWalkMF. In the further analysis of next subsection,

dimension d of RMF, PMF, SocReg, SocRec, ISMF and we choose category B as the primary test data.

CUNEMF is set as 20, 20, 10, 20, 20, 20, respectively. Besides,

the regularization parameter λ of these six models equals to C. Analysis and Discussion

0.1, 0.001, 0.1, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1, respectively. For GPLSA, we 1) Performances of Variant Proposed Models: As described

similarly use grid search to find the best value for the number in Section III, ImWalkMF is a joint model of matrix factor-

of topic from {5, 10, 15, 20} and set the value to 10. For ization (MF) and implicit walk integrative learning (IWIL)

ImWalkMF, σ = 3 (in scale 5) is used to construct user-item from both user and item levels. Whether each component

implicit bipartite network, then we select L = 40, T = 10 to plays a role on the joint model and to what extent does each

generate the set of random walk sequences. In model training, component influence the recommendation performance? To

we set d = 15, λ = 0.001, ξ = 1.0 for both datasets, and τ = 6, answer these questions, we conduct experiments to evaluate

4 for CiaoDVD and Epinions, respectively. Due to the sparsity the performances of three kinds of ImWalkMF model includ-

of datasets, we use global average rating (mean value of all ing:

ratings in training data) to predict the test instances whose • UM F : the model of MF from only user level, i.e., imple-

user or item never appears in training process. Furthermore, menting line 20 to line 24 in the inference function of

we set up two categories of test data: category A contains all Algorithm 1.

test samples, and category B contains all test instances whose IW IL

• UM F : the joint model of MF and IWIL from only user

user and item appear in model training. level, i.e., implementing line 20 to line 34 in the inference

B. Result Comparison function of Algorithm 1.

IW IL

• U V M F : the proposed joint model of MF and IWIL from

The performances of our method and the baselines on all

both user and item levels.

kinds of settings are reported in Table II, where the best

performances are shown by bold text. In addition, the last The performances of three models of on category B test data

row of each dataset reports the average prediction accuracy of of various settings are reported by Table III. As it can be seen

each method. The main takeaways from the result table are from the table:

summarized as follows: • UM F has close performance to RMF since it only relies on

• All models perform better on CiaoDVD dataset than on ratings based matrix factorization.

IW IL

Epinions dataset. It is mainly because Epinions has sparser • UM F largely improves UM F ’s performance. It verifies

rating density than CiaoDVD, i.e. 0.012% v.s. 0.026%. In that random walk sequences capture multiple useful corre-

addition, SocReg and SocRec, ISMF and CUNEMF have lations among users and items, and the IWIL component is

better performances than RMF, which indicates the positive necessary for model learning.

IW IL IW IL

influence of incorporating the explicit social relationship or • The joint model U V M F outperforms UM F , especially

implicit correlations into MF. for the prediction accuracy in terms of RMSE. It shows

• The proposed ImWalkMF has the best performance. It is that the item-level correlations, especially for item-item

much better than RMF and PMF, with 5.6% and 10.8% av- indirected correlation, further enhance the model’s ability

erage improvements, respectively. In addition, ImWalkMF in shaping latent spaces of users and items.

reduces 4.6% and 4.7% prediction errors of explicit so- Therefore, each component of the joint model helps improve

cial recommendation algorithms SocReg and SocRec, re- the performance of recommendation.

spectively. Moreover, ImWalkMF outperforms the implicit 2) Parameters Sensitivity: The hyper-parameters play im-

social recommendation models ISMF and CUNEMF by portant roles in ImWalkMF, as they determine how the model

TABLE II

P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF I M WALK MF AND THE BASELINES . T HE BEST PERFORMANCES ARE SHOWN IN BOLD TEXT. C ATEGORY A SET

CONTAINS ALL TEST RATING SAMPLES AND C ATEGORY B SET CONTAINS ALL TEST RATING SAMPLES WHOSE USER AND ITEM APPEAR IN MODEL

TRAINING . I M WALK MF HAS THE BEST PERFORMANCE IN ALL SETTINGS .

Test

Dataset Train% Metric RMF PMF SocReg SocRec ISMF GPLSA CUNEMF ImWalkMF

Category

MAE 0.806 0.868 0.804 0.789 0.801 0.763 0.769 0.754

A

RMSE 1.039 1.131 1.035 1.027 1.031 1.026 1.001 0.989

60%

MAE 0.796 0.869 0.788 0.784 0.786 0.733 0.741 0.719

B

RMSE 1.029 1.141 1.016 1.022 1.025 1.005 0.970 0.953

MAE 0.791 0.827 0.783 0.769 0.776 0.744 0.754 0.737

CiaoDV D A

RMSE 1.019 1.084 1.013 1.001 1.011 1.003 0.983 0.971

80%

MAE 0.771 0.832 0.764 0.765 0.762 0.715 0.727 0.706

B

RMSE 0.997 1.097 0.994 0.999 0.995 0.980 0.953 0.935

Average over all 0.906 0.981 0.900 0.894 0.898 0.871 0.862 0.845

MAE 0.864 0.887 0.847 0.841 0.836 0.821 0.830 0.814

A

RMSE 1.109 1.154 1.095 1.109 1.097 1.099 1.082 1.070

60%

MAE 0.863 0.901 0.846 0.840 0.835 0.818 0.828 0.809

B

RMSE 1.106 1.164 1.090 1.108 1.093 1.096 1.074 1.061

MAE 0.849 0.869 0.838 0.834 0.836 0.812 0.825 0.806

Epinions A

RMSE 1.095 1.128 1.083 1.098 1.095 1.089 1.076 1.062

80%

MAE 0.850 0.873 0.837 0.835 0.838 0.809 0.823 0.801

B

RMSE 1.091 1.131 1.076 1.099 1.094 1.084 1.068 1.051

Average over all 0.978 1.013 0.964 0.971 0.966 0.954 0.951 0.934

P ERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF THREE KINDS OF I M WALK MF MODEL . • The margin ξ controls user’s preference gap between pos-

UMIW IL LARGELY IMPROVES U IW IL FURTHER ENHANCES

F M F AND U V M F

UMIW IL . itive correlated items and negative items. The larger ξ is,

F

the less penalty of hinge loss for negative samples will be

Dataset Train% Metric UM F IW IL

UM U V IW IL incurred. Thus the performance, especially for accuracy in

F MF

RMSE, decreases with the increment of ξ and the value of

MAE 0.794 0.723 0.719 ξ for optimal performance equals to 1.0.

60%

RMSE 1.035 0.962 0.953

CiaoDV D

MAE 0.774 0.708 0.706

80%

RMSE 1.006 0.942 0.935

Therefore, the certain setting of the hyper-parameters lead to

MAE 0.869 0.812 0.809

60%

RMSE 1.115 1.067 1.061 the best performance of ImWalkMF.

Epinions

MAE 0.854 0.804 0.801

80%

RMSE 1.108 1.056 1.051 3) Performances on Cold Start Users: The cold start prob-

lem is prevalent in recommender systems, especially for new

users or new items with limited available ratings. Thus it

would be more difficult to learn preferences of cold start users

will be trained. In order to evaluate how changes to the hyper-

than general users. In order to validate the effectiveness of

parameters of ImWalkMF affect its performance on recom-

ImWalkMF for improving the recommendation for cold start

mendation, we conduct experiments to evaluate the impacts of

users, we evaluate the improvements of ImWalkMF over RMF

window size τ , latent factor vector dimension d, regularization

(in terms of the reduction in MAE and RMSE) on different

parameter λ and hinge loss margin ξ. The recommendation

user groups. First we classify all users into 6 groups (i.e.,

accuracy (in terms of MAE and RMSE on category B test

1∼5, 6∼10, 11∼15, 16∼20, 21∼25 and >25) based on the

set) of ImWalkMF on various settings of τ , d, λ and ξ are

number of observable ratings they have in training data, and

shown in Figure 2. According to the figure:

then measure the improvement in each group. The results

• With the increment of window size τ , MAE (RMSE) evaluated on category B test data are reported in Figure 3. It

decreases at first since a larger window means more useful is easy to find that ImWalkMF consistently outperforms RMF

implicit correlations among users and items. But when τ in all user groups. More importantly, our method achieves

goes beyond a certain value, MAE (RMSE) increases with relatively larger improvements in cold start user groups (the

the further increment of τ due to the possible involvement first few groups in the plots) as opposed to the other groups.

of non-correlated information. The best values of τ for It indicates that ImWalkMF well addresses the cold start

CiaoDVD and Epinions are 6 and 4, respectively. problem. Besides, the reduction in MAE and RMSE of 60%

• Similar to τ , appropriate values should be set for latent training data is larger than that of 80% training data, which

factor vector dimension d and regularization parameter λ further verifies the strength of ImWalkMF in modeling cold

such that the best embeddings of users (items) are learned start users’ preferences since less training data means sparser

for making accurate recommendations. The optimal d and available data and more cold start users.

0.735 0.76 0.80 0.730

CiaoDVD 60% Train CiaoDVD 60% Train 60% Train CiaoDVD 60% Train CiaoDVD

0.730 80% Train 0.75 80% Train 0.78

80% Train 0.725 80% Train

0.76

MAE

MAE

MAE

MAE

0.720 0.73 0.715

0.74

0.715 0.72 0.710

0.72

0.710 0.71 0.705

3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 15 20 25 30 10-5 10 -4

10 -3

10 -2

10 -1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

window size τ latent factor dimension d regularization parameter λ hinge loss margin ξ

0.98 1.02 0.98 0.98

CiaoDVD 60% Train CiaoDVD 60% Train 60% Train CiaoDVD 60% Train CiaoDVD

0.97

80% Train 1.00

80% Train 0.97

80% Train 0.97

80% Train

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95

3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 15 20 25 30 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

window size τ latent factor dimension d regularization parameter λ hinge loss margin ξ

0.824 0.825 0.87 0.816

Epinions 60% Train Epinions 60% Train 60% Train Epinions 60% Train Epinions

0.86

0.820 80% Train 80% Train 80% Train 80% Train

0.820

0.85 0.812

0.816

0.84

0.815

MAE

MAE

MAE

MAE

0.812 0.83 0.808

0.810

0.82

0.808

0.81 0.804

0.805

0.804

0.80

3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 15 20 25 30 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

window size τ latent factor dimension d regularization parameter λ hinge loss margin ξ

Epinions 60% Train Epinions 60% Train 60% Train Epinions 60% Train Epinions

80% Train 1.08

80% Train 1.070 80% Train 1.085

80% Train

1.07

1.065

1.07 1.075

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

1.06 1.060

1.06 1.065

1.055

1.05

1.05 1.055

1.050

3 4 5 6 7 8 5 10 15 20 25 30 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

window size τ latent factor dimension d regularization parameter λ hinge loss margin ξ

Fig. 2. The impacts of different hyper-parameters on the performance of ImWalkMF, window size τ , latent factor vector dimension d, regularization parameter

λ and hinge loss margin ξ.

0.10

60% Train

0.08

60% Train

torization and implicit walk integrative learning, based on

80% Train 80% Train

0.09

0.07 the random walk sequences. Finally we propose a sampling

reduction in MAE

reduction in RMSE

0.08

0.07 0.06

based combined strategy to train the joint model and learn

0.06

the latent factors of users and items. The experimental re-

0.05

0.05 sults on the two real-world datasets show that our proposed

CiaoDVD CiaoDVD

0.04

1~5 6~10 11~15 16~20

number of training ratings

21~25 >25

0.04

1~5 6~10 11~15 16~20

number of training ratings

21~25 >25 method outperforms the traditional regularized/probabilistic

0.07 0.06 matrix factorization models as well as the other baselines

60% Train 60% Train

0.06

80% Train 0.05

80% Train which employ explicit/implicit social information. Overall,

reductionin RMSE

reduction in MAE

0.04 our work provides new insights for capturing and modeling

0.05

0.04

0.02 At last, some potential future work includes: (1) extending

Epinions Epinions

0.03

1~5 6~10 11~15 16~20 21~25 >25

0.01

1~5 6~10 11~15 16~20 21~25 >25

the implicit walk integrative learning with more content like

number of training ratings number of training ratings

items’ tags information; (2) designing heterogenous random

Fig. 3. The improvements (in terms of reduction in MAE and RMSE) of walk based integrative learning framework for other applica-

ImWalkMF over RMF in different users groups. ImWalkMF reaches larger tions like citation paper recommendation in academic search

improvements in the first few (cold start) groups of users than the other groups.

systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK

This work is supported by the Army Research Labora-

In this paper, in order to address the previous work’s tory under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-09-2-

limitations in utilizing explicit/implicit social information to 0053 and the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant IIS-

improve the matrix factorization recommendation technique, 1447795. The views and conclusions contained in this docu-

first we utilize random walk sampling on user-item implicit ment are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as

bipartite network to collect a set of node sequences which representing the official policies, either expressed or implied,

contain multiple directed/indirected correlations among users of the Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government.

and items. Then we design a joint model of matrix fac- The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute

reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copy- [28] M. Koestinger, M. Hirzer, P. Wohlhart, P. M. Roth, and H. Bischof,

right notation here on. This publication is jointly supported “Large scale metric learning from equivalence constraints,” in CVPR,

2012, pp. 2288–2295.

by the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology [29] W. Liu and I. W. Tsang, “Large margin metric learning for multi-label

(KAUST) Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) under Award prediction.” in AAAI, 2015, pp. 2800–2806.

No. 2639. [30] Z. Zhao, Q. Yang, D. Cai, X. He, and Y. Zhuang, “Expert finding

for community-based question answering via ranking metric network

learning,” in IJCAI, 2016, pp. 3000–3006.

R EFERENCES [31] Z. Zhao, H. Lu, V. W. Zheng, D. Cai, X. He, and Y. Zhuang,

[1] D. A. Davis, N. V. Chawla, N. A. Christakis, and A.-L. Barabási, “Time “Community-based question answering via asymmetric multi-faceted

to care: a collaborative engine for practical disease prediction,” DMKD, ranking network learning,” in AAAI, 2017.

vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 388–415, 2010. [32] C.-K. Hsieh, L. Yang, Y. Cui, T.-Y. Lin, S. Belongie, and D. Estrin,

[2] D. D. Lee and H. S. Seung, “Algorithms for non-negative matrix “Collaborative metric learning,” in WWW, 2017, pp. 193–201.

factorization,” in NIPS, 2001, pp. 556–562. [33] T. Chen and Y. Sun, “Task-guided and path-augmented heterogeneous

[3] J. D. Rennie and N. Srebro, “Fast maximum margin matrix factorization network embedding for author identification,” in WSDM, 2017.

for collaborative prediction,” in ICML, 2005, pp. 713–719. [34] C. Gkantsidis, M. Mihail, and A. Saberi, “Random walks in peer-to-peer

[4] Y. Koren, “Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collab- networks,” in INFOCOM, 2004.

orative filtering model,” in KDD, 2008, pp. 426–434. [35] J. Leskovec and C. Faloutsos, “Sampling from large graphs,” in KDD,

[5] K. Yu, S. Zhu, J. Lafferty, and Y. Gong, “Fast nonparametric matrix 2006, pp. 631–636.

factorization for large-scale collaborative filtering,” in SIGIR, 2009, pp. [36] M. Gjoka, M. Kurant, C. T. Butts, and A. Markopoulou, “Walking in

211–218. facebook: A case study of unbiased sampling of osns,” in INFOCOM,

[6] Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky, “Matrix factorization techniques for 2010.

recommender systems,” Computer, vol. 42, no. 8, 2009. [37] L. Page, S. Brin, R. Motwani, and T. Winograd, “The pagerank citation

[7] Y. Koren, “Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics,” Communi- ranking: Bringing order to the web.” Stanford InfoLab, Tech. Rep., 1999.

cations of the ACM, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 89–97, 2010. [38] M. E. Newman, “A measure of betweenness centrality based on random

[8] R. Salakhutdinov and A. Mnih, “Probabilistic matrix factorization,” in walks,” Social networks, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 39–54, 2005.

NIPS, 2007, pp. 1257–1264. [39] X. Song, Y. Chi, K. Hino, and B. Tseng, “Identifying opinion leaders

[9] H. Ma, H. Yang, M. R. Lyu, and I. King, “Sorec: social recommendation in the blogosphere,” in CIKM, 2007, pp. 971–974.

using probabilistic matrix factorization,” in CIKM, 2008, pp. 931–940. [40] B. Perozzi, R. Al-Rfou, and S. Skiena, “Deepwalk: Online learning of

[10] H. Ma, I. King, and M. R. Lyu, “Learning to recommend with social social representations,” in KDD, 2014, pp. 701–710.

trust ensemble,” in SIGIR, 2009, pp. 203–210. [41] A. Grover and J. Leskovec, “node2vec: Scalable feature learning for

[11] M. Jamali and M. Ester, “A matrix factorization technique with trust networks,” in KDD, 2016, pp. 855–864.

propagation for recommendation in social networks,” in RecSys, 2010, [42] T. Mikolov, I. Sutskever, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean,

pp. 135–142. “Distributed representations of words and phrases and their composi-

[12] H. Ma, D. Zhou, C. Liu, M. R. Lyu, and I. King, “Recommender systems tionality,” in NIPS, 2013, pp. 3111–3119.

with social regularization,” in WSDM, 2011, pp. 287–296. [43] S. Rendle, C. Freudenthaler, Z. Gantner, and L. Schmidt-Thieme, “Bpr:

[13] B. Yang, Y. Lei, D. Liu, and J. Liu, “Social collaborative filtering by Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback,” in UAI, 2009,

trust,” in IJCAI, 2013, pp. 2747–2753. pp. 452–461.

[14] A. J. Chaney, D. M. Blei, and T. Eliassi-Rad, “A probabilistic model for [44] T. Hofmann, “Collaborative filtering via gaussian probabilistic latent

using social networks in personalized item recommendation,” in RecSys, semantic analysis,” in SIGIR, 2003, pp. 259–266.

2015, pp. 43–50. [45] Y. Koren, “Factor in the neighbors: Scalable and accurate collaborative

[15] G. Guo, J. Zhang, and N. Yorke-Smith, “Trustsvd: Collaborative filtering filtering,” TKDD, vol. 4, no. 1, 2010.

with both the explicit and implicit influence of user trust and of item

ratings,” in AAAI, 2015, pp. 123–129.

[16] X. Wang, S. C. Hoi, M. Ester, J. Bu, and C. Chen, “Learning personal-

ized preference of strong and weak ties for social recommendation,” in

WWW, 2017, pp. 1601–1610.

[17] H. Ma, “An experimental study on implicit social recommendation,” in

SIGIR, 2013, pp. 73–82.

[18] C. Zhang, L. Yu, Y. Wang, C. Shah, and X. Zhang, “Collaborative user

network embedding for social recommender systems,” in SDM, 2017.

[19] G. Linden, B. Smith, and J. York, “Amazon. com recommendations:

Item-to-item collaborative filtering,” IEEE Internet computing, vol. 7,

no. 1, pp. 76–80, 2003.

[20] P. Resnick, N. Iacovou, M. Suchak, P. Bergstrom, and J. Riedl, “Grou-

plens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews,” in

CSCW, 1994, pp. 175–186.

[21] Y. Hu, Y. Koren, and C. Volinsky, “Collaborative filtering for implicit

feedback datasets,” in ICDM, 2008, pp. 263–272.

[22] R. Pan, Y. Zhou, B. Cao, N. N. Liu, R. Lukose, M. Scholz, and Q. Yang,

“One-class collaborative filtering,” in ICDM, 2008, pp. 502–511.

[23] S. Kabbur, X. Ning, and G. Karypis, “Fism: factored item similarity

models for top-n recommender systems,” in KDD, 2013, pp. 659–667.

[24] X. He, H. Zhang, M.-Y. Kan, and T.-S. Chua, “Fast matrix factorization

for online recommendation with implicit feedback,” in SIGIR, 2016, pp.

549–558.

[25] C.-X. Zhang, Z.-K. Zhang, L. Yu, C. Liu, H. Liu, and X.-Y. Yan, “In-

formation filtering via collaborative user clustering modeling,” Physica

A, vol. 396, pp. 195–203, 2014.

[26] E. P. Xing, A. Y. Ng, M. I. Jordan, and S. Russell, “Distance metric

learning with application to clustering with side-information,” in NIPS,

2002, pp. 505–512.

[27] K. Q. Weinberger, J. Blitzer, and L. Saul, “Distance metric learning for

large margin nearest neighbor classification,” in NIPS, 2006.

- Mobile Multimedia RecommendationsUploaded bySvastara Bijeljina
- Detailed Structure Applicable to Hybrid Recommendation TechniqueUploaded byIAEME Publication
- Analysis of a Multi-Domain Recommender SystemUploaded byDouglas Veras
- Web Service Recommendation by Combining QOS and User CommentsUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Comparison of Recommender SystemsUploaded byezekill
- Improving Aggregate Recommendation DiversityUploaded byAbdullah Parvez
- Rec Om Mender SystemUploaded byjunkzxc
- IJIRAE:: FUZZY NEIGHBOUR PREDICTION BASED ON OBJECT TYPICALITYUploaded byIJIRAE- International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering
- Ranking Diversity Aug2009Uploaded bySirotnikov
- Recommender Systems in Industrial ContextsUploaded byMarub Asub
- KNN algoUploaded byDishti Aggarwal
- Ga RecommenderUploaded byezekill
- Improving the Performance of Recommendation on Social Network by Investigating Interactions of Trust and Interest SimilarityUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Item-Based Collaborative Filtering Recommendation AlgorithmsUploaded byMirna Milic
- Feature Grading (1)Uploaded byAjay Tarade
- Survey FinalUploaded byNihal Jain
- Movie Recommendation SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Context Aware Decision Support Mobile Application for Recommendation in the Domain of HotelsUploaded byInternational Journal for Scientific Research and Development - IJSRD
- Recommender SystemsUploaded byApoorva Rastogi
- A Survey of Web Service Recommendation Methods-28660Uploaded byEditor IJAERD
- Web Service Recommendation using Collaborative FilteringUploaded byIRJET Journal
- ETCW19Uploaded byEditor IJAERD
- 08255222Uploaded bytalha
- IRJET-Recipe Companion: Posting And Sharing Using Recipes Recommendation SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal
- P1.pdfUploaded bymansi sood
- A Facebook Profile Based TV Shows and Movies Recommendation System-IJAERDV04I0395508eeUploaded byEditor IJAERD
- 889-1951-1-PB.pdfUploaded byPanagiotis Symeonidis
- Dynmic Trust Based Two LayerUploaded bySanjay Krishnamurthy
- V3I515.pdfUploaded byIJCERT PUBLICATIONS
- Recipe Companion: Posting And Sharing Using Recipes Recommendation SystemUploaded byAnonymous CUPykm6DZ

- Holik III ThesisUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Electromagnetic force computationUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Uncertainty analysis of thermocouplesUploaded byyash_ganatra
- EMS3 MilindUploaded byyash_ganatra
- EMS8 Milind ThesisUploaded byyash_ganatra
- big.2017.0055Uploaded byyash_ganatra
- DATA MINING FOR IMBALANCED DATASETS_ AN OVERVIEW.pdfUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Enabling Technologies for MEMS and Nanodevices Advanced Micro and Nanosystems 4 Packaging of Advanced Micro and NanosystemsUploaded byyash_ganatra
- MHD TheoryUploaded byyash_ganatra
- AFS Thermal Analysis of CupsUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Developed Flow MITUploaded byyash_ganatra
- nc_2Uploaded byyash_ganatra
- AFS Thermal analysis of cupsUploaded byyash_ganatra
- US_Steel_handbook.pdfUploaded byyash_ganatra
- AFS Thermal Analysis of CupsUploaded byyash_ganatra
- A Text Book on Automobile Chassis and Body Engineering (AUploaded byhunny29
- 2020316-Compiling and Loading FLUENT 64 - Using SDKxUploaded byaerospace7030
- The Benefits of a Year AbroadUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Turbo Machines,Uploaded byyash_ganatra
- Feynman Lectures on ComputationUploaded bywhyatepie
- Thin Films - Journal of applied physicsUploaded byyash_ganatra
- basics of balancingUploaded byprajash007
- Turbo MachinesUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Socialissues2 Dr TanushreeUploaded byyash_ganatra
- AZO on Polymeric SubstratesUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Wort GruppeUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Continuous Casting TheoryUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Industrial Control SystemUploaded byyash_ganatra
- Udf Fluent Sdk and Visual cUploaded byyash_ganatra

- BilelFAIDI.NetCV.February2015Uploaded byAnonymous SmYjg7g
- UMTS Events_Quick ReferenceUploaded bykshitijpadhye
- VBAUploaded byshivas143
- System Integration Guide 2014Uploaded bycatalin_chirilov
- logiqs7 pptUploaded bypeawar
- Smart Home Automation using LabviewUploaded byRabiya Syed
- sourceofdatainresearch-130509030156-phpapp01.pptxUploaded bysetti
- White Paper SAFeUploaded byNicolae Simina
- 67293066-Dis-Peed.pdfUploaded byguillermo arenas bautista
- From Novice to Master Understanding AnalyticsUploaded bylmhenriquezm
- Iom Start UpUploaded bymquaiotti
- Id14 ManualUploaded byJorgeLopezArregui
- airfoil.docUploaded bychiru1431
- Inventory ConfigurationUploaded byMahad Ahmed
- PDN Design Essentials for Wideband Low ImpedanceUploaded bysanjeevsoni64
- foxpro.docUploaded byMm
- 2016 Latest Microsoft 70-496 Exam Questions PDF 89q SharedUploaded byPhoebe Bruce
- FMRCOMMINSTUploaded byZhie Al Muhajirin
- A MODEL FOR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS VIA FUZZY NEUTROSOPHIC SOFT SETSUploaded byMia Amalia
- Hunter Win Align ManualUploaded bydennis
- RADStudioXE2_ThirdPartyLicenseUploaded byAnthony Adams
- Unit 5 Architecture and ScenariosUploaded bybkumar1979
- SAMPLE Mastercam X9 Multiaxis Professional CoursewareUploaded byEduardo Aleman Reyna
- Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice ch_02Uploaded byضرار الأزور
- Toshiba Canivo Personal Cloud User Manual EnglishUploaded bybestasw
- Junior Lawyer - Job Description.pdfUploaded byNicholas Dammen Jr.
- Microsoft Word 2007 Users ManualUploaded byJava Rob
- AT91sam7x256Uploaded byanhminh81
- IEEE_00985199Uploaded byMohammad Hosseini
- Syllabus B.tech & M.techUploaded byWasim Parray